Ha. I must have missed it among the 200 page threads complaining about the graphical fidelity of the grass
(and CDPR mods are much less tolerant of unconstructive posts on their forums
)
I really do wish the mods around here were more like those ones, but of course if they started to be more like that way you would see posts on many gaming sites "EA is restricting free speech".
Born and raised in Dixie I'm sorry to saySure but on euros I am assuming you are living in the UE and that is my general experience in this place. People still can buy games but are looking for a deal, that is better than nothing.
I did play the game at release and it was horrible with KBM, it was only functional on the xbox 360 control. Also they didn't have some resolution like 1280 x 1024, their overall HUD was a console port. Some people did complain about that but not to that much nerdrage was seen.
Ah grass clipping worst game ever
Witcher forum have his share of "fun" topics. My most favorite muslim trying to convince how evil nudity is.
Indeed. At the moment the TW3 PC players are complaining about how little information there is about PC UI and kb/m, worried that the game is dumbed down because of console players. I'd share this news with the BSN PC Community Concerns thread who appear to be counting the days to May 19th except for 1) that might be seen as provocative and 2) as a console peasant I'm not welcome there, fair enough I suppose 
In short, DAI isn't perfect, TW3 won't be perfect, if both are good, (I know one is already) I'll be happy.
And personally I like what CDPR has been up to, heck I've started replaying TW2 and I have my TW3 pre-order placed.
I like fantasy-world actionRPG, so it stands to reason that both DA and TW would be on my 'like' list.
What I don't like is when DAI and TW3 are used as exemplars with the purpose of kicking or provoking those who like the other franchise (instead of, or as well). Pillars of Eternity is out, great, The Witcher 3 is coming, wonderful. Neither of those things should be a basis for name-calling.
Finally, it amuses me that TW3 is seen as the poster boy for those who follow the 'BioWare turns you gay' school of thinking. Just because TW3 has a different style of earthy sexuality compared to the more progressive diversity typical of BioWare does not diminish CDPR in my view, they just have different styles. I have no reason to believe that CDPR supports bigotry any more than any other professional game studio.
TL;DR - I'm just a bit tired of the 'oh look, xyz game is out, that's proof that DAI is sh*t': can't folk just be a bit nicer about fantasy/RPG game franchises, as they remain niche content next to shooters/sports games and so must be cherished, faults and all.
Ha. I must have missed it among the 200 page threads complaining about the graphical fidelity of the grass
(and CDPR mods are much less tolerant of unconstructive posts on their forums
My issue isn't with CDPR, but with the attitude surrounding them by their fans. Such as how great they are for giving free DLC, but when BioWare did The Cerberus Network they were bad because they were attacked the used game market. The other thing that I am find fault with is really comparing any aspect of released content against content that hasn't been released yet, for it is comparing a real thing against something that doesn't exist yet. Of course my opinion on that will change in about five weeks when The Witcher 3 is released.
From your posts I'm guessing that the real problem with the Witcher 3 is some of the fans the game attracts then? Shall we say, not very subtle? Regarding the gay thing, is it so prevalent outside the BSN?
It's sad because the Witcher world and its type of writing is in fact very subtle, well-written and something of a connoisseur world with a lot of references to other preexisting fictional worlds.
If I may, I don't find the attitude of 'Another critic thread, let's jump it because I'm fed up with critics thread even though this one is not so bad and has some interesting points" productive and fair.
It's guilt by association in a sense. It reminds me of the vicious circle of the (Parisian) waiter and its clients. The waiter is rude to a nice client because his last client was rude. So, next time the client will be rude to the next waiter, in another café. And on and on and on to joyful misery.
Regarding the use of features of the Witcher 3 or PoE against DAI, people who were disappointed and felt betrayed by DAI can't help but compare. As Sofajockey was saying, there is a scarcity of RPGs compared to the huge number of games released these days.
If I may, I don't find the attitude of 'Another critic thread, let's jump it because I'm fed up with critics thread even though this one is not so bad and has some interesting points" productive and fair.
It's guilt by association in a sense. It reminds me of the vicious circle of the (Parisian) waiter and its clients. The waiter is rude to a nice client because his last client was rude. So, next time the client will be rude to the next waiter, in another café. And on and on and on to joyful misery.
Yes that's fair comment - I have a bit of a soft spot for the DA multiplayer so my hackles were straight up . You are right to highlight the principle.
Regarding the use of features of the Witcher 3 or PoE against DAI, people who were disappointed and felt betrayed by DAI can't help but compare. As Sofajockey was saying, there is a scarcity of RPGs compared to the huge number of games released these days.
It's an unfortunate truth that change is painful. We all have games we loved, some recent, others in the dim and distant past. New games must match a rather rose-tinted nostalgia. When I have actually tried to play a game a decade old I am struck by how crude they are, despite my deep fondness. Sure, I get how it can hurt if a game you have built up in your head, sometimes for years, falls short of that aspiration, but equally to fall into bitter and twisted hate and feelings of betrayal is not healthy either.
From your posts I'm guessing that the real problem with the Witcher 3 is some of the fans the game attracts then? Shall we say, not very subtle? Regarding the gay thing, is it so prevalent outside the BSN?
It's sad because the Witcher world and its type of writing is in fact very subtle, well-written and something of a connoisseur world with a lot of references to other preexisting fictional worlds.
If I may, I don't find the attitude of 'Another critic thread, let's jump it because I'm fed up with critics thread even though this one is not so bad and has some interesting points" productive and fair.
It's guilt by association in a sense. It reminds me of the vicious circle of the (Parisian) waiter and its clients. The waiter is rude to a nice client because his last client was rude. So, next time the client will be rude to the next waiter, in another café. And on and on and on to joyful misery.
Regarding the use of features of the Witcher 3 or PoE against DAI, people who were disappointed and felt betrayed by DAI can't help but compare. As Sofajockey was saying, there is a scarcity of RPGs compared to the huge number of games released these days.
You read a little too deep into my post I think, I have no problem with the fans of The Witcher series or Dragon Age: Inquisition like either game for whatever reason you like. Personally if you like one over the other more power to you to enjoy what you pay for.
I really have two problems with the arguments the OP has had in this thread and one was resolved awhile back that one regarding talking about how great a value the "expansion pass" is for The Witcher 3 (nothing to do with BioWare in that issue) for we don't know how long its really going to take us or what content we are going to get with that. The other issue I have right now and it goes beyond the OP saying this is all the talk about how great the "16 free DLC is" and how original idea that is, where BioWare had something similar with Mass Effect 2. It really doesn't go beyond that and I know not all Witcher fans feel that way.
So, I am a fanboy? First of all, I have never "reviled" a company for changing their mind. Not Bioware or any other gaming company. I have tried to make any criticism constructive and I certainly don't see The Witcher as the perfect game nor am I blind to any criticism it receives. In fact, I don't think I have ever called out someone on this forum or any other forums I am a member of for giving TW criticism and I certainly haven't felt defensive towards anyone. However, this thread is filled with defensive posts at anyone giving CDPR praise and this entire forum is filled with threads where people insult and get "defensive" because someone has critiqued Bioware or DAI. So, yeah. Politics and fanboy mentality, indeed.
Where did I say your name as a fanboy, exactly?
What I said was the mentality that permeates the thread is very "fanboy" like. That is where the politics comes from in the end, and it sucks.
Where did I say your name as a fanboy, exactly?
What I said was the mentality that permeates the thread is very "fanboy" like. That is where the politics comes from in the end, and it sucks.
Considering you replied to the post where I was talking about CDPR changing their mind and then using that phrase to lead into discussing that "fanboy" mentality, it was only fair to assume it was directed toward me, or those of that opinion.
If I misunderstood, I apologize, but it certainly appeared you were replying directly to me.
Considering you replied to the post where I was talking about CDPR changing their mind and then using that phrase to lead into discussing that "fanboy" mentality, it was only fair to assume it was directed toward me, or those of that opinion.
If I misunderstood, I apologize, but it certainly appeared you were replying directly to me.
I also apologize if it wasn't clear. My bad on that.
ImO CDPR sells W3 too cheap.
I know many have not enough money to buy all the games they wish to play, sometimes they have to save for months to buy a single game. But still if you as a developer invest so much time and money in the production of a game you should be allowed to get something for your trouble.
Most RPGs today are too cheap. 50-60 Dollar seems to be some kind of magical barrier. Here in Germany RPGs for PC cost about 60 Euro on release day. I comleted DAI 3 times and spend about 300 hours playing it. 60 Euro is nothing for me considering the fun I had with the game. I´m willing to pay for expensive DLC (compared to the price of the main game) because I believe the MAIN game is worth more than 60 Euro and I like to support Bioware because I enjoy their games very much.
I liked both Witcher games. It´s a different kind of storytelling. The Witcher 3 seems to be VERY promising. Why sell something this promising for such an absurd price and even add more content for nothing.
It´s a grand gesture but surely they would like to pay their bills.
GoG pays their bills. They're in the same boat as Valve, as they can fund their own projects without signing with a publisher. And apparently game development is insanely cheap in Poland. TW2 dev cost was around 10 million USD. Witcher 3 is 15 million USD, though I think they've gone over budget. I don't know what DA:I cost is, but I'm guessing it's at least double that. Probably more. So, they charge less for new games and apparently can afford to float free content on their budget. Sure, they play it up, but it's not just marketing when you deliver the goods. Also, when a dev puts out post release content, it's often content that was started and then shelved. This isn't the equivalent of pulling content from the base game and selling it later. It still costs money to finish and deliver. I think most game devs do this and it's not a bad thing.
As a rule, I despise DLC. I want the game to have everything in it when I buy it. If they wish to make an expansion later, fine, I may buy that. but DLC just seem a modern gaming way to get as much money from me. If the story in a DLC is that important, it should be in the main game, otherwise it is just sauce for the goose. As for sexual orientation issues, I do not give a rats ass what your sexual orientation is. So stop worrying about what they have in a game. If you dont like it, or it make you feel uncomfortable, don't play. I would prefer less sex tbh in my games rather than more. And more for a heterosexual female. But I get either IB or wimps, its a game, make a choice or do without. As for the name calling, again its a game forum, get over yourselves, get laid, get a job, take a walk, but get over the name calling.
As a rule, I despise DLC. I want the game to have everything in it when I buy it. If they wish to make an expansion later, fine, I may buy that. but DLC just seem a modern gaming way to get as much money from me. If the story in a DLC is that important, it should be in the main game, otherwise it is just sauce for the goose. As for sexual orientation issues, I do not give a rats ass what your sexual orientation is.
In what way is something like the Citadel DLC for ME3 different than, say, the Brood War expansion for StarCraft? They both add several hours of gameplay, lore, cutscenes, and characters to the single-player portions of the game, and in the case of Brood War, several new units to the multiplayer, since StarCraft is an RTS.
If expansions are fine, but "DLC" is bad, what kind of line is being drawn? Especially considering any game with a single-player element is going to have story add-ons, whether it be "expansions" or "DLC". They're both additional content that you purchase AFTER the release of the core game, which adds on to what already exists in the core game.
I concede the terms DLC and Expansion are sometimes used interchangeably. An Expansion is a whole add on or sector etc, a DLC is minor plot lines. Th issue I have is in modern gaming they make DLC which major plot lines, which is NOT fair to those purchasing a game. An Expansion on the other hand is one major upgrade that is not quite a new game in itself.
Maybe we could use the dollars-to-gameplay-hours ratio? If the product comes close to matching the ratio for the base game, it's an "expansion."
Sure, except everyone plays through content at their own pace. If it takes someone else 10 hours to go through a game, it might take me only 6 hours or so (which is usually the case). A game like DAI which, from what I read on here, takes anywhere from 80 to 100 hours to beat only takes me around 40 or 50.
I concede the terms DLC and Expansion are sometimes used interchangeably. An Expansion is a whole add on or sector etc, a DLC is minor plot lines. Th issue I have is in modern gaming they make DLC which major plot lines, which is NOT fair to those purchasing a game. An Expansion on the other hand is one major upgrade that is not quite a new game in itself.
Sure, except everyone plays through content at their own pace. If it takes someone else 10 hours to go through a game, it might take me only 6 hours or so (which is usually the case). A game like DAI which, from what I read on here, takes anywhere from 80 to 100 hours to beat only takes me around 40 or 50.
I would hardly call a single new hairstyle "DLC" as is the case with the rest of these "free DLCs". A single MP addon for ME3 has more content than all those DLCs tenfold and that is free too.
I concede the terms DLC and Expansion are sometimes used interchangeably. An Expansion is a whole add on or sector etc, a DLC is minor plot lines. Th issue I have is in modern gaming they make DLC which major plot lines, which is NOT fair to those purchasing a game. An Expansion on the other hand is one major upgrade that is not quite a new game in itself.
So a DLC has "minor plot lines", but a DLC can, at the same time, have "major plot lines"?
This is my problem with people trying to make a distinction between expansion and DLC, is that the line being drawn is entirely man-made and makes no logical sense.
"Expansions have story, DLCs don't". Okay, then Citadel, Dragonborn, Dawnguard, Lair of the Shadow Broker, all of those must be expansions then. Oh, but wait, according to some people, they're just DLCs since they only give around 7 or 8 hours of content.
If an expansion is "a whole add on or sector", then every extra piece of content that adds to the singleplayer that isn't a weapon pack, skin pack, or armor pack (or any other cosmetic item) is a full "expansion", by way of adding more missions, quests, objectives, etc, typically in new locations with new characters. So something like Citadel for ME3 is an "expansion" in the same way that Awakening is an expansion for DAO. They both add new characters, new locations, and new enemies, along with a new storyline with more armor and weapons to obtain. Yet, for some reason, Awakening is considered an "expansion" while Citadel is just a "DLC".
Citadel is, for all intents and purposes, an expansion. It has a hub, a separate, standalone, plotline, adds a new character.
Something like Leviathan is a DLC. It adds a new plotline that feeds into the main game, its hub is temporary.
Awakening is an expansion. The other DA add-ons have been DLC.
Shadow Broker is also an expansion. At least in my eyes, new hub, new character, standalone plotline.
If one wants to take the human element out of it entirely, then focus on how the game's loaded up. An expansion can be played at any time, by loading it up. A DLC is integrated into the story. Of course that doesn't quite fit either, because of how certain games do their DLC, but if someone wanted to include Awakening, and disclude everything else, that's the way to do it. Personally, that doesn't really fly with me. I don't have an objective Expansion v. DLC line, I just know an expansion when I see one.
It should also be noted, being an expansion doesn't automatically make something better. Whatever Citadel is counted as, it gave me more than my money's worth over the time I've owned it. It's probably the best $15 I've ever spent in terms of gaming value.
I also apologize if it wasn't clear. My bad on that.
Sometimes it's hard to interpret text in context. Sometimes I never can tell if someone is being jocular, sarcastic or serious. It's a guessing game!
It comes down to their absolutely unprincipled and almost comically over-the-top and dishonest catering to a topic that gamers hate. You can see this with the way they handled TW2's UI and KBM controls. To say that they were complete garbage is to not do justice to their craptacular nature. They're terrible now, and they've invested a lot of time in them.
But what they did at release was praise the PC fanbase to such heights that their effectively doing exactly what DA:I did with PC controls (but with a worse final product) went entirely unnoticed.
I concede the terms DLC and Expansion are sometimes used interchangeably. An Expansion is a whole add on or sector etc, a DLC is minor plot lines. Th issue I have is in modern gaming they make DLC which major plot lines, which is NOT fair to those purchasing a game. An Expansion on the other hand is one major upgrade that is not quite a new game in itself.
I don't see why not. If you're arguing that what's typically considered dlc gives worse bang for your buck, I might agree.
But I'm not sure where the line is drawn that developers are allowed to continue storylines via an expansion, but not via some smaller medium. Why can't I say, for example, that it's unfair that I needed WCIII: The Frozen Throne to complete Warcraft III's storyline?
In what way is something like the Citadel DLC for ME3 different than, say, the Brood War expansion for StarCraft?
(to fchopin) Do you mind elaborating on why you consider it so?
Retour en haut